Republican “leaders” continue to work without respite to bail out, cover and otherwise rescue weak Barack Obama. Even though “Obama’s ego, image, power and legacy motivated this change. The GOP is acting like it didn’t. Obama and his team made this political. The GOP is acting like it’s not.”

The left along with its Big Media affiliate are divided on what to do about Syria and the public is firmly against Obama’s War but the Stupid Party refuses to fight and won’t even deploy the secret weapon. Hillary Clinton, as we wrote long ago and many times thereafter, is the Republican Secret Weapon. But they are so terrified of Hillary Clinton 2016 they can only think with their fear filled animal brains. Of all people, John Fund demonstrates what we mean and how it is done:

“It’s become accepted fact that Obama’s decision-making style resembles that of an academic convening an unruly seminar whose participants he largely disdains. What he is not is a decisive leader with the ability to bring disparate players together behind a common purpose.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. We had inklings of it a long time ago. Back when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton accused him of “taking a pass” on tough issues when he was in the Illinois state senate, a theme later picked up by Republicans. Its basis is the 129 times he voted “present.” On 36 of those occasions, he was the only one to vote present of the 60 senators. One of those occasions was in 1999, when he twice chose not to vote on a bill protecting sexual-assault victims from having the explicit details of their cases made public without “good cause.” Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of the Illinois National Organization of Women at the time, said she endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2007 in part because “when we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass.”

Today President Obama’s chaotic indecisiveness is a big part of his challenge in getting both houses of Congress to approve military action in Syria. [snip]

Since then, further evidence has piled up that Obama is a dithering, indecisive leader willing to deflect making a decision because of what many see as political calculation.

The “take a pass” Obama is not the problem. The “take a pass” strategy Obama has utilized has been very effective for self-advancement and therein lies the problem. Barack Obama is extremely diligent and intelligent, in a criminal sort of way, when it comes to self advancement. But, as we have so often written, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president because he has no worldview that is congruent with reality. Add to that Obama’s twisted personality which is genetically tied to his messianic self-delusions that he is leader of the world not just America. That explains why America is under attack from within by the executive branch.

By comparison Russia is lucky to have a strong Russian leader. Vladimir Putin is not interested in being president of the world. Vladimir Putin is interested in the elevation of Russia on the world stage and in promoting the interests of Russia.

Vladimir Putin has faults such as his anti-gay views and an obsession with displaying his man-boobs and his masculine domination of animals. But even in these faults Vladimir Putin believes he helps Russia. In Putin’s mind anti-gay policies might reduce the Russian birth rate problem. As to the ostentatious displays of “masculinity” Putin is symbolizing the power of Russia.

Americans should envy and desire a president, like Vladimir Putin, who pushes the interests of his country above all.

Consider the Putin position on Syria. Putin has taken a strong position on Syria and his position is based on Russian self-interest. Putin’s position on Syria also appears likely to be the successful one.

What is Putin up to in Syria? For one thing Putin elevates a relatively weak and economically poor Russia into contention for world leadership against a much richer much more economically powerful United States unfortunately undermined with a weak leader. Putin also gets to project military power and gives his navy and military a way to exercise their atrophied muscles. Putin is a fount of strength and tough message projection while Obama is the simpering fey weakling whose wife has more muscles than he has.

“The linkage between oil prices and Russia’s revenues cannot be ignored in calibrating what has, and may happen yet in the Middle East.

Hydrocarbons account for two-thirds of Russian export revenues and nearly half of its state budget. And until very recently just two regions, Russia and the Middle East, dominated world trade in oil and gas. Russia has regularly boasted of being an “energy superpower”. Indeed the whole Putin system is built on channeling hydrocarbon profits to regime supporters, as well as financing domestic military expansion. There were quite a few raised eyebrows at this year’s Paris Air Show when Russia showed off its new, expensive, Su-35 high-tech fighter aircraft.

Meanwhile, under President Obama — and we hasten to note largely independent of and arguably despite U.S. federal policies — entrepreneurs have created an oil and gas revolution in the American shale fields that undermines Russia’s export profits, and perhaps the very survival of Putin’s governance.

Russian oil production is at a 25-year high. If this had occurred in the tight world oil market everyone had expected, revenues would have soared in recent years. While the threat of Middle East war causes markets to price ahead of a supply disruption, historically that’s been a short-term effect. In the longer term the energy landscape has been permanently reset over the past half-dozen years with the entry of American oil and gas technology, inelegantly dubbed shale fracking.

The United States today is the world’s fastest growing oil and gas producer and is already eroding Russian revenues and influence. With production gushing out of the heartland, America has pushed Russia aside to become number one in global gas production. The prospect of future U.S. LNG exports is now exerting downward pressure on prices of Russian gas exports to Europe. Russia is increasingly being forced to abandon the, once sacred, gas-oil price link to maintain market share. [snip]

Thus far Russia’s reaction to the shale gale has been to dismiss it as a “bubble.” But they know better.“

In spite of Barack Obama’s destructive economic policies and downright treacherous foreign policy the United States has a bright future in the energy sphere. The United States is not in trouble. Barack Obama is the one going down. A leader of any organization, business, or country should have as her priority promotion of the organization, business, or country she leads. Barack Obama puts American interests at the bottom of his list of considerations – if American interests make his priority list at all.

“In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”

Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Timeseditorial in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.”

Russia is winning because their team captain is Vladimir Putin who prioritizes Russian interests. Vladimir Putin’s compass is Russian interests. Russia has strong Putin. America has weak Barack Obama.

“The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers. [snip]

Other elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast, and openly allied with Al Qaeda.

Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.

That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.”

“Vladimir Putin has the home field advantage. As the host of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, he can control the images and the logistics of the meeting of the world’s most important industrialized and emerging economies inside the Constantine Palace, also known as the “Russian Versailles.” He can hardly wait to show it off, complete with its glistening hardwood floors, to Barack Obama. The G-20, Putin has said, will provide “a good platform” to discuss the problems in Syria. [snip]

In St. Petersburg, Obama is expected to seek international support for his policy course.

Putin, on the other hand, believes that he can further isolate Obama by forcing an “international referendum” on the American line of possible intervention in Syria, Russian expert and National Security Council staffer Andrew Weiss told the US website Politico. “This whole trip has become a total headache,” he said.

Even without the tensions over Syria, US-Russian relations were already in a shambles. Obama cancelled a planned bilateral meeting with Putin after Russia granted asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Instead, the US president plans to meet with gay activists in St. Petersburg — a deliberate affront to Putin now that Russia’s anti-homosexual laws and the mistreatment of gays and lesbians in the country have become a major subject of international debate.

The “restart” Obama had wanted in US-Russia relations has instead become an ongoing series of mistakes and misunderstandings.”

Russian gay rights activists are getting the short end of the stick. Flaccid Obama is in publicity stunt mode and once Obama is gone they will pay the price for helping Obama. Syrian gays won’t even get a meeting with limp Obama but they will be wiped out once Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood pals get power. While Obama and Russian gay right’s activists stroke each other to no purpose Vladimir Putin is playing cat and rat with Obama:

“Putin himself has described the claim that Assad deployed poison gas as “absurd.” In an interview with the Associated Press and the Russian TV station First Channel, he said he could not rule out a military strike against the Assad regime. But he said this could only be done with the approval of the UN Security Council, where Russia has made clear it will block any such resolution. Putin is clearly playing a game of cat and mouse. [snip]

Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, will also make an appearance in St. Petersburg — mainly to lobby for the inclusion of the UN Security Council in the handling of the conflict. This approach was already tangible in Stockholm. “Let us place our hopes with the United Nations,” Reinfeldt said at the press conference.”

In 2008 Barack Obama attacked George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton as warmongers not interested in international order. Now it is Vladimir Putin on the phony high ground and Barack Obama the deranged warmonger too weak to enforce his will and increasingly shrill and desperate.

Strong Vladimir Putin is on the moral high ground by asking for international order and United Nations authority while at the same time punching Obama in his botoxed proxy Kerry:

“Putin called Obama Secretary of State John Kerry a liar over Kerry’s testimony this week before Congress.

The question may be al-Qaeda’s influence on the Syrian rebels, an issue Kerry has downplayed.

Speaking to his human rights council Wednesday, Putin said, “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans), and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

“It was unclear exactly what Putin was referencing, but Kerry was asked Tuesday while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if the Syrian opposition had become more infiltrated by al-Qaeda.

“Kerry responded that that was ‘basically incorrect’ and that the opposition has ‘increasingly become more defined by its moderation.’ …

“BERLIN — Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.

In a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website late Wednesday. Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.

Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.”

“President Obama hasn’t been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn’t been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either,” he said of their relationship.

“We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems,” Putin said.

Strong Putin has as his compass Russian interests. Weak Obama has as a compass his mirror.

“Less than three months after Vladimir Putin was cast as a pariah over Syria at the last big meeting of world leaders, the Russian president has glimpsed a chance to turn the tables on Barack Obama. [snip]

Buoyed by growing pressure on the U.S., French and British leaders over Syria, the former KGB spy has also now hit back in comments referring ironically to Obama as a Nobel Peace laureate and portraying U.S. global policy as a failure.

“We need to remember what’s happened in the last decade, the number of times the United States has initiated armed conflicts in various parts of the world. Has it solved a single problem?” Putin asked reporters on Saturday in the city of Vladivostok.

“Afghanistan, as I said, Iraq … After all, there is no peace there, no democracy, which our partners allegedly sought,” he said during a tour of Russia’s far east.

Denying as “utter nonsense” the idea that Assad’s forces would use chemical weapons when they were winning the civil war, Putin looked steely and confident.

After months of pressure to abandon Assad, he is sending a message to the West that he is ready to do battle over Syria in St Petersburg and sees an opportunity to portray the United States as the bad boy on the block.

“Of course the G20 is not a formal legal authority. It’s not a substitute for the U.N. Security Council, it can’t take decisions on the use of force. But it’s a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not take advantage of this?” he said.

“Is it in the United States’ interests once again to destroy the international security system, the fundamentals of international law? Will it strengthen the United States’ international standing? Hardly,” he said.”

It’s hard to believe that former KGB thug Putin, the guy who poses in homoerotic beefcake photos, who arrests Pussy Riot, who is so anti-gay, has the moral high ground while also being the tough guy. Have you ever heard of Obama described as “steely and confident”? Neither have we.

“BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike in response to reports of a chemical weapons attack in Syria drew a range of reactions from Syrians on Sunday, with rebel leaders expressing disappointment and goverment leaders questioning Mr. Obama’s leadership.

Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fears that an intervention could become “an open war.” [snip]

A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

“The Israel newspaper Haaretz carried an analysis on Sunday by Amos Harel, a military analyst, saying that Mr. Obama’s postponement of a military strike against Syria suggested that he would be less likely to confront Iran on its nuclear program going forward, and that in the Arab world, he would now be “seen as weak, hesitant and vacillating.”

“The Obama administration’s conduct gives us insight into the strategic challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program,” the analysis said. “From an Israeli point of view, the conclusion is far from encouraging. The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely.

“It’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent,” it said.”

“A red line for us,” he said, “is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

A year later, a president famously inclined to disentangle himself from the Middle East now finds himself trapped by that seemingly simple declaration. To do nothing in the face of images of children killed by poison gas would cripple his credibility in the last three years of his presidency. As Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday, in making the case for a military strike, “it matters if nothing is done,” not least because of the signal it sends to the Iranians, the North Koreans and others who are measuring Mr. Obama’s willingness to enforce other red lines on far worse weapons. For those countries, it remains an open question — even after the drone strikes against terrorists and cyberattacks on nuclear facilities — if a president elected to get America out of wars is willing to take the huge risks of enforcing his lines in the sand.

Yet the sharply limited goals Mr. Obama has described in explaining his rationale for taking military action now — “a shot across the bow” to halt future chemical attacks, he told PBS — pose risks of their own. If President Bashar al-Assad emerges from a few days of Tomahawk missile barrages relatively unscathed, he will be able to claim that he faced down not only his domestic opponents but the United States, which he has charged is the secret hand behind the uprising.

In the words of one recently departed senior adviser to Mr. Obama, “the worst outcome would be making Assad look stronger.”

After drawing the red line, Barack Obama is showing his yellow streak. Weak Obama drew the red line. Assad kicked the red line up Obama’s arse. Now weak Obama denies the undeniable:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

At an August 2012 White House press conference, Obama warned that “we have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Yellow streak on the red line from weak Barack Obama.

Whatever one thinks of Vladimir Putin (homophobic beefcake?) he is strong because he is defending his nation’s interests. Barack Obama only cares about himself and that is why few paying attention trust or believe him. Like an old ugly man buying a Porsche to make himself sexy Barack Obama wants to assert himself as not weak via phallic missiles. But The credibility crisis can’t be solved with Tomahawk missiles.

“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”

“While most top congressional leaders have vowed to back President Barack Obama in seeking authority to launch missile strikes, there’s little evidence that they can — or even want to — help him round up the rank-and file-Republicans he’ll need to win a vote in the House.

Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman said that he “expects the White House to provide answers to members’ questions and take the lead on any whipping effort.” Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose aides and allies run the whip process, isn’t yet in favor of Obama’s request for military authority in Syria.

Several lawmakers and aides who have been canvassing support say that nearly 80 percent of the House Republican Conference is, to some degree, opposed to launching strikes in Syria. Informal counts by Obama allies show that support in Congress for Obama’s plans is in the low dozens.

While a handful of lawmakers pledged support for striking Syria inside a White House meeting with Obama Tuesday, the hell-no caucus in the House gathered steam outside, portending a vicious, multi-factional fight over the most somber issue that ever faces Washington — whether to deploy military force. In the House, neither Republican nor Democratic leaders are in a position to speak for their rank-and-file. Several lawmakers and senior aides interviewed by POLITICO Tuesday wondered about the fallout for leadership if the resolution is resoundingly defeated.

World leaders arrived Thursday for a dinner hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin where they would discuss the crisis in Syria, with US President Barack Obama showing up alone and well after the main group.

The main group of leaders led by Putin arrived together at the historic Peterhof palace outside Saint Petersburg, with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande seen talking animatedly at the back of the pack.

But Obama was nowhere to be seen and only arrived at the palace a good half an hour after the rest.

Striding purposefully through the palace park, he smiled and waved for the cameras, images broadcast by the organisers showed.

In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

When you’re the leader of the free world, you don’t make statements you can’t back up and you don’t draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

“historic Peterhof palace outside Saint Petersburg”
******
The thing that I remember the most about visiting the palaces were the black and white pictures in each room showing the massive, senseless vandalism that the Germans inflicted. The money and effort that has gone into restorations has been enormous and was begun after the war ended. For the Communists to devote money and labor restoring Czarist excess says something about “Rodina” being more important to Russians than political philosophy. Perhaps the biggest difference between Putin and Obama who feels nothing but antipathy for America.

The unofficial whip count list on Syria is fascinating in political terms.

The issue with the Republicans may be how hard the House leadership tries to whip members into line. Republican leaders are in a position in which they at least have to pay lip service to Obama simply because of the longstanding Republican position that politics should stop at the water’s edge once a President, any president, commits to a plan of action. My guess is they won’t press very hard to line up votes.

The Democrats have a far more complex political problem. There exists a huge block of members who were elected at least in part because they professed pacifism in principle when now it seems that all they really were was anti-Bush. But many of their supporters probably took them at their word in the progressive strongholds across the nation. What to make of militant progressives such as Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) who are now said to be in support of going to war? And what to make of career progressive politician Ed Markey, recently elected Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass)? He started his political career by opposing the war in Vietnam. Markey took the bold move and voted present on the Syria resolution in committee. He will have to run for a full term in 2014.

He doesn’t know what to do. Of all the issues raised by President Obama’s conduct toward Syria, that is the most worrisome. He’s had a year — a year — to think this through, to consider the options, to consult his advisers, to make plans. And when the moment came, he froze.

“Update: If Obama can’t get his own congressional Obama Dimocrats to vote for his national security “moral obscenity”…..
*****
From WSWS:

“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday passed a resolution backed by the Obama administration that grants the president a free hand to carry out a devastating war against Syria in order to “change the momentum on the battlefield” and strengthen the US proxy forces seeking to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad.”

The resolution, passed by a vote of 10 to 7, with seven Democrats voting in favor, incorporates an amendment proposed jointly by Republican John McCain and Democrat Chris Coons declaring that “it is the policy of the United States” to shift the relationship of forces on the ground in favor of the opposition and enhance the fighting capabilities of “elements of the Syrian opposition.”
***
…..included language allowing the president to use whatever force he deemed necessary to “deter and degrade” Syria’s capacity to use weapons of mass destruction now or in the future, provide “all forms” of military and political aid to the so-called “rebels,” and “limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime.”
***
The resolution grants the president an initial 60 days of military operations in Syria, with the option to extend the war by another 30 days. It includes a provision barring the use of American ground troops, but adds the caveat “for the purpose of combat operations.” This loophole will be used to escalate the use of CIA and Special Forces troops within Syria.
***
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, who voted for the resolution, said afterward of the military attack, according to the Los Angeles Times, “This won’t be a limited, but a powerful response.”

“…“limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime.”
The “and others” may be the most dangerous language that has been made public as “others” seems to mean Russia.

Quite a magnificent compilation, admin.
——————–
Even OFA’s not for Syria:
Organizing for Action, the successor of Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, confirmed Tuesday that the group will not lobby on President Obama’s behalf to support a military strike against Syria, the Washington Examiner first reported. OFA Executive Director Jon Carson told supporters during a weekly conference call that the group has “so much going on on other issues” it doesn’t have time for Syria. SNIPhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/organizing-action-wont-touch-syria-debate/

Obama showing up alone and well after the main group
———————-
Fashionably late. How ironic. Peter The Great, who had his own world view, and built St. Petersburg in furtherance of that world view, must be laughing at the great messiah don’t take me on Obama. His interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of this nation, and for that matter the entire world.

The thing that I remember the most about visiting the palaces were the black and white pictures in each room showing the massive, senseless vandalism that the Germans inflicted. The money and effort that has gone into restorations has been enormous and was begun after the war ended. For the Communists to devote money and labor restoring Czarist excess says something about “Rodina” being more important to Russians than political philosophy. Perhaps the biggest difference between Putin and Obama who feels nothing but antipathy for America.
———————–
Well put. It does not show much judgment by the people who voted for him, does it?

In foreign relations as in tort law there is the doctrine of assumption of risk. In the present context, it means that any asshole who votes in favor of intervention, owns the final result. And if the final result is needless blood shed, the killing of innocent civilians, a million refugees and a nuclear confrontation, the blood is on their hands, not Obama’s for giving an idiot who has demonstrated serial acts of incompetence up to this point a free hand to do whatever he pleases. That risk should trump party loyalty and every other consideration. This is not our fight.

Up to now I have not believed anything serious would be done in Syria.

Now, I’m beginning to believe something big might be in the works.

WHY DO I BELIEVE THAT?

Because John Boehner is refusing to meet with a delegation of Russian lawmakers who have come to the US to discuss the Syrian situation on Capitol Hill.

Obama has ruined our relationship with Putin.

If a Republican refuses, in the wake of obama’s disastrous diplomacy, to attempt to renew such communications, then that Republican has no goal for the future Republican leadership of the US (i.e. the Presidency) ….

UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES THAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT which makes it unreasonable for us to even bother speaking with any Russian leaders on the issue of Syria.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-congress-speaker-john-boehner.html
———————-
It is clear to me that we are headed to war with Iran to save Israel. Larry Johnson has made that point crystal clear and has pointed out all the contradictions. We are on the verge of this now, and the end game is not coming together. Boehner does not want to allow a direct appeal to his wavering colleagues for fear that they will say no. Boehner has his marching orders. Yesterday Kissinger declared that in the past he has been in favor of covert action, whereas now he favors direct military attack, the results of which will be a disaster for our country. Mindful of the liklihood of that outcome, those who are faced with the choice of whether to support this action should realize the risk they are assuming if they elect to do so. And, if that does happen, it is likely that they will pay the price, whereas by doing nothing, the risk they assume is vague and can be cloaked in either pacifism or sound diplomacy.

WaPo’s blog The Fix has been updating their whip count on the Syria resolution all day and at this point, it looks like the president is heading for a disastrous fall.

In fact, it’s no contest. As of Thursday evening, 204 House members — including 54 Democrats — have come out publicly against taking military action against Syria or are leaning that way. Two hundred seventeen votes are needed for passage. (Note: There are 433 members due to two vacancies.)

Only 24 members are in favor of the resolution.

With so many Republicans in opposition, will Boehner even bother to bring the resolution to a vote?

Regardless, it has become increasingly clear that a significant majority of House Republicans is likely to oppose the resolution. That means we are headed not just for questions about whether it would pass, but also about whether House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who supports the use of force — would bring it to a vote in violation of the so-called “Hastert Rule,” which requires a majority of the majority party to support a bill for it to be brought to a vote.

Given the strong demand for congressional input from both advocates and opponents of military action, it seems there’s at least a fair chance he will. Even if Boehner were to bring it to a vote, though, the minority Democrats would need to be pretty close to united, according to our current count. As of now, that’s not that case, with 22 Democrats expressing opposition and 24 more expressing skepticism.

All of it adds up to a very difficult path for the use of force resolution in the House.

How bad is it? President Obama has cancelled a Hollywood fundraising trip next week in order to stay in Washington, trying to salvage what’s left of his presidency:

President Obama has scrapped a planned two-day trip to Los Angeles early next week ahead of a congressional vote on a military strike against Syria.

The cancellation of the trip suggests the urgency with which Obama needs to press his case to win approval from Congress for military action.

“The president’s trip to California has been canceled,” a White House official said. “He will remain in Washington to work on the Syrian resolution before Congress.”

While prospects for passage of a resolution in the Senate look positive, the White House does not appear to have the votes in the lower chamber to win — at least not yet.

The president had been scheduled to speak to an AFL-CIO convention while in California, in what the White House had billed as a continuation of his middle class jobs tour.

He was also scheduled to attend a $32,400 per plate dinner at the home of Marta Kauffman, the co-creator of the sitcom “Friends.”

According to an email obtained by T

There were indications that Obama could be readying a national address to make his case for military action, which remains unpopular among lawmakers and the American public.

Can he pull it out? Never underestimate any president’s ability to get what he wants, but he needs a turnaround of epic proportions to succeed. And he will have to find a way to convince the GOP hawks that he will increase his efforts to topple Assad. With a mostly united Democratic party and 40 or 50 national security Republicans, Obama just might pull it off. But liberal Democrats are genetically leery of military action of any kind and Republicans simply don’t trust him.

If Obama fails, it will have been a disaster 4 years in the making. His arrogance, his inability to work effectively and consult with Congress, his sneering condescension toward his opponents, and a glaring lack of leadership have all combined to set him up for a bi-partisan fall on Syria.

I understand that Obama gave Putin the “death stare” when they met at the G-20. Putin had better be careful, because Obama is quite capable of running him over on his tricycle. Obama has a helmut for that contraption and Putin doesn’t.

I am quite sure that Putin has one or more top psychiatrists on his team, and they have diagnosed Obama’s mental state accurately. They know exactly what buttons to push to make him mad.

There are two reasons he wants Obama mad. The first reason is to prove he can do it, and show the malevolent side of Obama to the world. This is very detrimental to Obama’s image, because it contradicts his skippidy do da bullshit that has big media enthralled. The second reason is when Obama is mad, his thinking ability is seriously impair and shuts down altogether. For these reasons, Putin wants him mad, and Barry cannot help himself. It is the mongoose and the cobra.

Larry Johnson is the home run king. It is amazing to me how accurately he is giving us the REAL STORY here. I hope Vladimir Putin and our congressional leaders are reading his blog. This chemical attack is contrived. It is being used as a pretext for war with Syria and ultimately with Iran, and anyone who believes it will not eventuate in the use of combat troops is just plain stupid. Message to Putin: make Obama submit proof at G-20. Make him do it!
————————————-

Obama and Kerry Are Lying About Syria

By Larry Johnson on September 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM in Current Affairs

Barack Obama and John Kerry are lying about what has happened in Syria.

Yes, I have a record of doing this. Friends on the inside of the CIA warned me back in May of 2003 that the intel on Iraq was cooked and the American people were being fed a lie. Unfortunately, I learned this too late and was unable aggressively to make the case before we launched the invasion. Here’s what I said back then, and I was right:

My friends in the CIA are still around and they are now warning me that both the United States and the United Kingdom know that Bashir Assad is not responsible for the incident on 21 August that killed and maimed Syrian civilians. While it is true that a chemical of some sort caused the fatalities and injuries, it was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military quality chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal. The CIA knows that this is the case yet, with John Brennan at the head of the Agency, is deliberately lying and misleading members of Congress, the media and the public.

As I noted in an earlier piece, this was a pre-planned effort by the rebels to create an incident that would bring the United States into the war.

It was prepared in collaboration with the Saudis and the Turks. The canisters containing the chemical agent were opened and people in the immediate vicinity were affected. Some died and some suffered physical injuries.

Important to note that no single Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent has been recovered from the area. Not a single shred of physical evidence exists to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in Chemical weapons. And, there still is no medical evidence backing up the specious claim by Kerry and Obama that this was sarin.

I personally call on President Putin and other leaders at the G-20 to hold Obama to account and to demand proof. Obama cannot supply it. He is lying. He is being aided in this deceit by David Cameron, the British Prime Minister. If the United States proceeds to carry out a military strike on Syria it will be committing the same kind of crime committed by Adolf Hitler in launching an unprovoked and unwarranted attack on Poland in 1939. The stakes are this high and the United States must be stopped from committing war crimes against the government and people of Syria.

Tony Stark
September 5, 2013 at 8:12 pm
——————-
That video is also VERY IMPORTANT for Putin and our Congressional representatives to see, so they fully understand what is going on here. I believe that IF Congress turns him down, and he proceeds to war– based on this manufactured evidence, then he has crossed the threshold for articles of impeachment to be filed. In that case he is a clear and present danger to this country, and we cannot survive it for three more years.

2. BUTTBOY AIDE: the attack will be muscular enough not to be ridiculed but not so muscular as to provoke a response from Iran or others (meaning Russia) . . or-

2. SAD SACK KERRY: “Senator . . . The president is NOT ASKING YOU TO GO TO WAR . . . He’s simply saying we need to take an action that can DEGRADE CAPACITY of a man who’s been willing to kill his own people . . .? or–

I can imagine a senator or congressman saying the end justifies the means.

In that case, they might tell themselves, so what if the evidence which constitutes the pretext for war is phony, supporting the president is a worthy end unto itself.

The rebuttal to that errant thought is you cannot control the result, and if you knowingly relied on phony evidence to authorize a war which turns out to be a disaster for the United States, do you really believe people will accept your excuse that you did what you were told?

Tony Stark
September 5, 2013 at 9:43 pm
—————————-
I will get that video and Larry’s articles to my senators and congressmen, for whatever good it may do. My Congressman is Bagdad Jim McDermott, we shall see what he does. Murray has the mental give and take of a scottish terrier watching a rat hole and is impervious to any attack on Obama. Also she is too high in leadership to defy Reid. The other one is Cantwell and I am not as sure. She may think about it a little before she votes yes. It could even be that my last comment above will get her to think this thing through. This is a little bit like sitting as a jury on the murder case. Before you vote to convict or as here consign innocent people to death, you had better make goddamn sure your evidence is valid.

I really don’t understand why AIPAC is giving Congress the full court press for war with Assad. If/when the Assad/Alawites loose control of Syria, it will be Sunni Salafists on the Golan Heights. How the fuck is that good for Israel?

I can understand the concern with Iran but, IMO, the cesspool of Pakistan is a much larger nuclear threat. Pakistan has at least 100 modern nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them and are just a coup away from being a full-blown Jihadist state. I think that the Iranians are less crazy than the majority of the Sunni wackos that seem to be dominating mid-East politics. Perhaps they are more like the Egyptians who have pride in their non-religious past as opposed to the Allahu Akbar crowd.

If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big.

That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week — which is no sure thing — the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.

Several Republican leadership aides, who are counting votes but not encouraging a position, say that there are roughly one to two dozen “yes” votes in favor of military action at this time. The stunningly low number is expected to grow a bit.

But senior aides say they expect, at most, between 50 and 60 Republicans to vote with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who support the president’s plan to bomb Syria to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons on his people. That would amount to less than one-third of the House Republican Conference.

That would mean the vast majority of the 200 House Democrats will need to vote with Obama for the resolution to pass. But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 “yes” votes.

Some have raised questions again regarding President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize as he seeks authorization for military intervention in Syria. But columnist and Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers said on Wednesday that he should give it back for other reasons.

“Yeah, he should have given it back a long time ago, actually,” Powers said to Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly. “But, you know, for the drone war, for the escalating the war in Afghanistan, having all these people die unnecessarily, plenty of civilians have been killed by his drone war, including children.”

Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.

Has it come to this – U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheikhs, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Frankly, I worry about this even more because Obama is a sociopath. If Congress authorizes this war, then I believe he will extract more carnage than if they turn him down. Knowing that congress and the American People are not with him on this could exert a dampening effect on what he might otherwise do, whereas if congress approves, then Dick Head Durbin’s statement will be self fulfilling prophesy, i.e. won’t be a limited but a powerful response. In that case, Obama will proceed on steroids and there will be escalation on both sides. He has proven quite often that mere words will not constrain him whether it is the text of the Constitution or a war authorization resolution. The only way to control him is by voting not to give him the authority.

During the glory days of the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich used to preach that we needed issues with 60% support from the American people. Regardless of your feelings on Obama’s harebrained planned for military intervention in Syria, you have to look askance at why John Boehner and Eric Cantor decided to support the authorization to use military force in Syria when 80% (+/-) of Americans oppose the deal.

The answer is in the tweets screen captured on this page.

Apparently the GOP leadership is tired of being called obstructionist. They seem to have come to the conclusion that if the oppose Obama on this that they lose bargaining power in the upcoming votes on spending and the debt ceiling. This has led them to use Martian Logic to determine that if they do not oppose Obama on Syria somehow Obama will owe them something on spending.

It doesn’t take a political genius to see the fallacy here.

First, opposition to Syria is not only good policy it is backed by 80% of the American people.

Second, if you vote for a military strike you lose the ability to complain about whatever stupid thing Obama, Kerry, and Hagel come up with.

Third, you piss away an 80% issue.

Fourth, Obama isn’t going to give you squat on spending because you just proved to him you aren’t deserving of respect.

What they have done is essentially admit that they believe in leprechauns.

It is a shame that our House leadership and some otherwise conservative members of Congress are going along with this nonsense. They have the opportunity to make an easy and popular vote while doing the right thing for the right reason. Instead, they have betrayed the trust of the American people for nothing.

I really don’t understand why AIPAC is giving Congress the full court press for war with Assad. If/when the Assad/Alawites loose control of Syria, it will be Sunni Salafists on the Golan Heights. How the fuck is that good for Israel?
———————
I think Larry Johnson has provided a pretty clear answer to that question. The Sryian operation is laying the ground work for a war with Iran. If the Iranian nukes are buried in a mountain and are impregnable to bombing, then the only way to destroy them and eliminate the threat to Israel is through a massive ground operation led by the US. An air attack on Assad would be step 1 in that plan. Do you find fault with that logic?

For some reason the Pakistan risk is on no one’s radar scope. Also, bear in mind that Bibi was sufficiently concerned about the threat from Iran that he was prepared to go to war over that. Thus, I have to believe that AIRPAC is reflecting his point of view, as well the should. However, that does not mean the American People must be dragged into such a war.

Where Obama is going here: he knows his “red line” telegraph is the reason the Syrian rebels used gas. He’s distancing to avoid being personally blamed for triggering the gas attack.

“Red line” means use of military force. Hans Blix (right on Iraq War) says chemical weapons ban does not automate use of force — so no, the world community did not create a red line: http://www.theguardian.com/com…

VH, you’re so right about McCain. In that video he looked like an idiot, and he lacked the grace or humanity to acknowledge the loss the woman in the video had suffered, or extend sympathy. If he made a reasonable argument for an attack, I didn’t hear it.

Historically, Americans have not shrunk from a fight, when a fight was clearly necessary. Our government has not been able to put forth a clear and compelling case to support an attack. Obama is supposed to be the super orator, capable of changing hearts and mind with a few words, so eloquent and convincing he could sell overcoats in hell. Yet, he can’t articulate a coherent statement about this issue. And, Kerry has been worse.

The lyrics of that old song by The Eagles keeps coming to mind, ‘Armchair warriors often fail, and we’ve been poisoned by their fairy tales….”

Bush pushed the Iraq war down the throats of Americans. People won’t be so easily misled again.

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Michael Patrick Leahy 5 Sep 2013 871 post a comment
Republican leaders in Washington, including Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Senators McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), and Corker (R-TN), are supporting President Obama’s call for an American attack on Syria, but Tea Party groups around the country are united in their opposition to such military action.

Tea Party activists appear to be virtually unanimous in their support for the position taken by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who said on Tuesday the United States “should not serve as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force.”

Lynn Moss, co-organizer of the Mid-South Tea Party in Memphis, Tennessee, expressed a view held by many Tea Party activists around the country. Moss told Breitbart News on Thursday, “both sides of the conflict in Syria are enemies of the United States. It would be foolish,” she said, “and self-defeating to involve ourselves in this already volatile situation.”

Joanne Jones, vice chairman of the Charleston Tea Party in South Carolina, told Breitbart News Thursday that “conservatives of many stripes are opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria. Particularly in light of today’s account of al Qaeda-linked rebels murdering residents of a Christian village, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince us that the United States would indeed be helping the ‘right’ rebels.”

Bobby Alexander, chairman of the Central Kentucky Tea Party Patriots, told Mother Jones, “[c]onservatives in Kentucky do not want us involved in Syria.” John Kemper of the United Kentucky Tea Party added, “[t]he things I’m seeing and emails I’m getting from folks around the state, they’re not in favor of [an American attack on Syria.]”

Mark Kevin Lloyd, a Tea Party activist in Virginia, told Breitbart News that “the Obama administration and some in the Republican leadership seems overly concerned about the president’s credibility in the eyes of the world. Both President Obama and Speaker Boehner need to understand they each have the same credibility problems in the eyes of the American people.

“How can the president be so sure of the situation in Syria, and so clueless about Benghazi? Too many questions, not nearly enough answers.”

Bruce Carroll, chairman of Carolina Conservatives United, told Breitbart News, “we share the humanitarian concern for the Syrian people who have been killed and injured by conventional weapons and chemical weapons and the millions of refugees that are suffering due to that nation’s two-year civil war.

For Carroll, though, such concerns do not justify American intervention. “We strongly believe the situation in Syria will not improve, and could well deteriorate, due to American military involvement,” he said. “Additionally, we do not believe President Obama has adequately made the case that any national security interests are at stake, a minimum requirement for military actions abroad.”

Mark West, founder of the Chattanooga Tea Party in Tennessee told Breitbart News Thursday: “while Americans have come to expect flawed and disastrous foreign policy decisions from the Obama administration, what is alarming is the foolish part that Republicans are playing in embracing and facilitating Obama’s latest plan to attack Syria.”

According to West, “what should be painfully obvious to any alert American is that Obama’s plan (and now his Republican allies’) to launch “limited” attacks into a highly volatile war zone has the strong likelihood of escalating into a broader and protracted war. And if this occurs, Tennesseans will remember the fateful role that Senator Corker and other Republicans played in endorsing another one of Obama’s helter-skelter foreign policy initiatives.”

Though President Obama maintains he does not need Congressional authorization to conduct military action against Syria, he has nonetheless agreed to ask for Congressional support, without promising that he will be bound by votes taken in the House and Senate on the issue. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 to support President Obama’s call for an American air strike on Syria. Votes in the full Senate as well as in the House are expected to take place soon.

With those important votes looming, members of the Senate and the House are hearing from their constituents, the vast majority of whom oppose such action, according to recent polls. The virtually unanimous sentiment of Tea Party activists appears to be leading public opinion throughout the country in its opposition to American military attacks on Syria.

A U.S. strike against Syria would be a war crime says former Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Appearing on Fox News Channel on Thursday, Napolitano said that even a limited strike is illegal under international law and violates the U.S. Constitution.

“You can use military force to attack somebody that’s attacked you, or you can use military force to attack somebody that’s about to attack you,” Napolitano said. “You can use military force to come to the aid of an ally that has been attacked when the ally asks for your assistance.”

Urgent: Should U.S. Strike Syria? Vote Here

The United States also could use the military to enforce international norms if the United Nations authorizes it.

None of those conditions apply in Syria, Napolitano said, making it a war crime if the United States acts.

He said the 1973 War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it takes away Congress’ authority to wage war and gives it to the president in certain circumstances. He said he expects the House to vote down President Barack Obama’s request for authorization by about 20 votes. Public sentiment is against action as well, with polls showing more than 60 percent opposed.

“Who wants this to happen besides John Kerry and the president?” Napolitano asked. “Sometimes the president can get lawless – any president – when he has military equipment at his disposal.”

Its time to purge this administration, it is out of control and so obviously having its strings pulled by saudis and middle eastern royals, Obama is the provebial puppet. People need to take the peoples WH back and boot these bastards to the kerb and that means jail for treason……Kerry, McCain, Obama the lot of them, treasonous bastards all of them.

Syria crisis: al-Qaeda seizes village that still speaks the ancient language of Christ

A branch of al-Qaeda fighting in the Syrian civil war has seized one of the few remaining villages where the original language of Christ is still spoken, residents say.

Fighting raged through the picturesque mountain village of Maaloula, near Damascus, on Thursday, as the regime launched a counter-attack against the rebels.

“They entered the main square and smashed a statue of the Virgin Mary,” said one resident of the area, speaking by phone and too frightened to give his name. “They shelled us from the nearby mountain. Two shells hit the St Thecla convent.”

Maaloula, tucked into the honey-coloured cliffs of a mountain range north of Damascus and on a “tentative” list of applicants for Unesco world heritage status, is associated with the earliest days of Christianity.

St Thecla, who is supposedly buried in the convent, was a follower of St Paul who fled to the village in Syria to avoid marriage, having taken an oath of chastity. It is said that the cleft of rock in which the convent is placed opened up to allow her to escape her pursuers.

The inhabitants are mostly Melkite Greek Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but have historically lived peacefully alongside a Sunni Muslim minority. It is one of only three places in the world where Western Aramaic, a dialect of the language spoken by Christ, is still used.

Florida Representative Dares To Speak The Truth­ – NOT Sure Obama Is American

The interview takes a bizarre twist around the 7 minute marker, as Chris Matthews can’t help himself whenever interviewing a Republican that presents a credible argument for opposing Obama. Matthews attempts to discredit Rep. Yoho by leading into “birther” questions. Yoho started out with the usual memo response about the issue being unproductive but ended up doing a great job in refusing to bow to Matthews continued bullying. Rep. Yoho alludes to something the majority of Americans are thinking­not sure Obama is American. Possibly his constituents made their own doubts quite clear. –

WASHINGTON: The New York Times said it has obtained a video of Syrian rebels executing soldiers, fresh evidence of opposition brutality that comes at a crucial moment as world leaders debate launching strikes on the Damascus regime.

The footage is the latest indication that some in the Syrian opposition, which Washington backs, are behaving as ruthlessly as the regime they are fighting to oust.

It is also a reminder of how violent and criminal Syria has become as the US Congress prepares to vote on attacking President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

The newspaper said the video was smuggled out of Syria by a former rebel upset by the killings.

The footage, which the newspaper said was shot in 2012 and sneaked out of the country a few days ago, shows seven Syrian soldiers, some with welts on their backs and their faces pressed in the dirt.

A military commander recites a revolutionary verse.

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

Once the poem is over, the commander shoots the first prisoner in the back of the head and fellow gunmen quickly follow suit.

A key concern for the United States as it weighs an intervention is who among the multifaceted Syrian opposition it can trust as allies to replace Assad.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week passed a resolution allowing the use of force against Syria over an August chemical weapons attack, albeit with restrictions, and more votes in the rest of the legislature are likely next week.

Maybe Obama’s walk alone and late to the party was an act of defiance rather than an indication of feeling whipped. That’s what I’m thinking since I’ve come across this twice this morning:

ABC: Syrian Strike Could Be ‘Significantly Larger’ Than Most Anticipated (Video)
Source: ‘This military strike could do more damage to Assad’s forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in nearly two years of civil war’
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff September 5, 2013 7:53 pm
ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported President Obama’s plan for a Syrian strike could be “significantly larger” than most anticipated Thursday on “World News Tonight.”
Karl quoted an unnamed national security official who claimed the attack could do more damage to Assad in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years:
JONATHAN KARL: […] ABC News has learned the president’s national security team is preparing for a significantly larger military attack than most had anticipated. The air campaign which is expected to last at least two days will potentially include an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs fired from B-2 and B-52 bombers flying from the United States. That in addition to a relentless assault of Tomahawk missiles fired from those four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Those ships are loaded with nearly 200 missiles, plans call for firing the vast majority of them. As one senior national security official told ABC News, this military strike could do more damage to Assad’s forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in nearly two years of civil war. That’s more than President Obama seemed to be suggesting just days ago.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What we are envisioning is something limited […] We send a shot across the bow saying stop doing this.http://freebeacon.com/abc-syrian-strike-could-be-significantly-larger-than-most-anticipated/

The Planned Destruction of Christians in Syria
Cliff Kincaid ­ September 3, 2013

The New York Times story, “President Gains McCain’s Backing on Syria Attack,” is predictable, considering that Obama had invited Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to the White House for the specific purpose of supporting his proposed military strike on Syria. Obama has also asked the same two senators to travel to Egypt to undermine the military leaders who overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government there.

What is lacking from the media coverage is any recognition that the inevitable result, according to congressional testimony, will be the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and associated terrorist groups in Syria, and the genocide of the remaining Christians there.

In Egypt, right in front of our eyes, Obama facilitated a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, which has been stopped dead in its tracks by a true people’s revolution that has brought the military to power. The Muslim Brotherhood has responded by attacking Christians and their churches.

Incredibly, it seems as if the crisis in Egypt will be repeated, except in the case of Syria the explicit purpose of Obama’s military intervention, as it seems to be developing under the guidance of McCain and Graham, is the destruction of the regime that has been standing in the way of the complete obliteration of the Christians. There will be no one with authority left to rescue the Christians from the Muslim Brotherhood when it takes control in Damascus.

Pentagon Is Ordered to Expand Potential Targets in Syria With a Focus on Forces
WASHINGTON ­ President Obama has directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria in response to intelligence suggesting that the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been moving troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons while Congress debates whether to authorize military action.

Mr. Obama, officials said, is now determined to put more emphasis on the “degrade” part of what the administration has said is the goal of a military strike against Syria ­ to “deter and degrade” Mr. Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons. That means expanding beyond the 50 or so major sites that were part of the original target list developed with French forces before Mr. Obama delayed action on Saturday to seek Congressional approval of his plan.

For the first time, the administration is talking about using American and French aircraft to conduct strikes on specific targets, in addition to ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. There is a renewed push to get other NATO forces involved.

The strikes would be aimed not at the chemical stockpiles themselves ­ risking a potential catastrophe ­ but rather the military units that have stored and prepared the chemical weapons and carried the attacks against Syrian rebels, as well as the headquarters overseeing the effort, and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, military officials said Thursday.

NEW YORK – President Obama’s Kenyan half-brother, Malik Obama, appears headed for the Egyptian terror watch list because of his Muslim Brotherhood ties.

Complaints have been filed with Egypt’s prosecutor-general calling for Malik to be put on Egypt’s terror watch list and brought to Egypt to be questioned by state criminal investigators for allegedly financing terrorism, according to former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat.

According to Egyptian newspaper and television reports, Malik Obama has become a target in an Egyptian government terrorist investigation because of his role as an owner and investment adviser for the Sudan-based Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO, and the organization’s umbrella group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

As you may recall, during the build up to the first Iraq War, one of the foreign factions who wanted to bring us into that war was a phony witness from Kuwait who told Congress made up stories. That witness was introduced by an Administration seeking Congressional support.

Well, it is happening again, only in this instance the fraud is known before the fact, therefore anyone who votes for this maniacal policy has one more wrong to answer for, when it all turns to shit, and the people of this country become its victims.

As Erickson notes: “It turns out the woman briefing John Kerry and John McCain is in the employ of the Syrian rebels. She is a spin artist for them. She has Kerry, McCain, and the rest describing the rebels as moderates.”

Therefore, it appears that we are being lied to on three (3) accounts: i) the pretext for war, i.e. that Assad rather than the rebels launched the attack, ii) the nature of the side we will be aiding, i.e. that they are moderates (hint: moderates do not do Gestapo style executions on film, iii) the purpose of the operation, i.e. initially it was reported that the intent was to punish whereas now it is to take down the Assad regime, and iv) the magnitude of the attack, i.e. initially, it was not so muscular as to provoke a response from Russia or Iran, whereas now it is intended to inflict massive damage, and, frankly genocide on the people of that country. The only thing that has not changed is, even at this point, and after 50 revisions to the military plan, nobody has any clue as to the outcome.

Rooting for Injuries and the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | September 5th, 2013 at 08:49 PM | 31

Mideast Syria Brotherhood Comeback

The correct policy for American engagement in Syria is to root for injuries between the warring parties. Neither side is our friend. Neither side wishes to be our friend. When Middle Eastern tyrants are willing to pay us to take out the Assad regime and the rebels are butchering Syrians as badly as Assad — possibly with chemical weapons according to the United Nations — we should be staying out of it.

We should be hoping both sides incapacitate each other.

But Americans must now become mindful of the Baader-Meinhof Phenonmenon.

The phenomenon describes when one encounters something obscure, like a previously unknown or little considered word, then encounters it repeatedly in the ensuing days.

There’s a word we are already beginning to hear. Having only noticed it in passing in the last week’s talking points, it has become a steady drip, drip, dripping from the Obama administration and John McCain — “moderate”. You will now hear it constantly in conversations about the Syrian rebels.

Press reports and intelligence confirm the Syrian rebels are brutal, allied to Al Qaeda, slaughtering Christians, and bent on imposing a fundamentalist regime in Syria. The supposed moderates are in the minority and, should Assad fall, will themselves fall to more savage zealots driven not by a desire to throw off a dictator, but by a more driving desire to impose themselves as dictators.

It turns out the woman briefing John Kerry and John McCain is in the employ of the Syrian rebels. She is a spin artist for them. She has Kerry, McCain, and the rest describing the rebels as moderates.

Like in a political campaign, they seek to define their side and the other side before that other side can do the defining. The rebels, through their lobbyists in Washington, are trying to sell Congress and us on their moderation.

They are not moderate. They are not our friends. They would glady kill us if we were not now useful to them. We should be rooting for injuries in Syria, not rooting for the rebels.
Tags: Syria

Is anyone else watching this Clown? 😆
————————
I am five years past listening to anything he says. Virtually everything you hear from him is a lie, big media promotes it as a god like pronouncement, and he spits in the face of the American People, while exactly half of them simply believe him. No. This whole thing is insanity, and insanity follows him wherever he goes. If anyone at this point has any doubts that our democracy is controlled by people who are hostile to our interests, and that like his predecessor, this clown is a puppet who has to read speeches others have written for him, then then I do not even want to talk to them. It is like singing to pigs, i.e. it is a waste of time and it annoys the pigs.

Gee I guess it’s good Romney lost he would have taken us to war with Syria. 😆 😆

When it comes to Joe Biden, Barack Obama and the rest of their leftist ilk, you can now pretty much assume the opposite of whatever they say is true. Which, as we now learn, was exactly the case when Joe Biden warned voters that Mitt Romney would take America to war with Syria.

Sept. 2, 2012, YORK, Pa. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that Republican rival Mitt Romney is “ready to go to war in Syria and Iran” while hurting the middle class.

The warning came during a campaign stop in York, Pa., designed to promote President Barack Obama’s economic policies among white, working-class voters. The thrust of Biden’s pitch has been that America is digging out from the 2008 economic collapse and that Romney would take the country backward. But Biden, a foreign policy heavyweight, also cautioned voters that Romney would adopt policies that favor confrontation over cooperation.

Admin: well, here is streiff again at red state echoing your words. I rather suspect he reads your blog, and that two brilliant minds think alike. (P.S. I have it on good authority that when Obama arrived fashionably late at the G-20 meeting and before his death stare at Putin, the St. Petersburg orchestrated played that lilting song Send In The Clown to announce his excellency’s arrival. And David Brooks swore they were playing hail to the chief so he saluted.
————————————-
Mr. Putin’s Reasonable Proposal

By: streiff (Diary) | September 6th, 2013 at 10:30 AM | 0

putin obama

We’ve reached a sad state of affairs when the Russian president has more credibility that the American president but that is where we are.

The difficulties that Obama faces in launching his manhood-validating spring totally from his own ineptness and incompetence.

The British have refused to sign on the strike. The hare-brained nature of the proposal, reinforced by the reflexively anti-British actions of this benighted administration, has ensured our most trusted ally is sitting this one out. The French may help, but they may surrender. Who knows? The chair of the Democratic National Committee, the aesthetically challenged Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, assures us “dozens” of allies are with us on the strike but they are simply too embarrassed to make their support public.

We, the United States, have been reduced to the status of the fat girl that makes you chew off your own arm so you can sneak out of bed without waking her.

The real stumbling block is the evidence that the Assad regime actually committed the attack in question. Right now the evidence is essentially the administration, whose estrangement from the truth is becoming legendary, saying “trust me.” Unlike any other conflict we have entered, this one is bereft of evidence available to the public and one has to ask why. Not only has the evidence not been presented to the American people, it has also been withheld from our allies:

President Obama said Wednesday during a one-day stopover in Sweden that armed groups fighting against Assad in Syria simply do “not have the capability” to have carried out the Ghouta attack.

“These weapons are in Assad’s possession, we have intercepts of people in the regime before and after the attack acknowledging it, we can show rockets going from Assad controlled areas into rebel territory with the weapons,” asserted Mr. Obama.

But if the White House has already shown that evidence to its partners in the United Nations Security Council — including, most crucially, the veto-wielding members Russia and China — it has failed to convince the vast majority of them of its veracity.

Russia has amassed evidence that at least one of the Sarin attacks blamed on Assad was carried out by the rebel forces Obama is so fond of… the ones that are only 25% jihadis.

To resolve the problem, Mr. Putin has made a reasonable proposal. Bring the evidence to the UN Security Council. Present it there. Let the world decide.

When asked whether Russia would agree to military action if Damascus were proven to have carried out a chemical weapons attack, Putin answered: “I do not rule it out.”

However, he also made clear that Russia is not yet prepared to accept U.S. and European assertions that Assad’s forces were behind an August 21 chemical weapons attack that Washington says killed more than 1,400 people.

“We have no data that those chemical substances – it is not yet clear whether it was chemical weapons or simply some harmful chemical substances – were used precisely by the official government army.”

Putin said no strikes on Syria could be legal without approval by the United Nations Security Council, where Moscow has a veto that it has repeatedly used to protect Assad.

“According to current international law, only the United Nations Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other approaches, means, to justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state, are inadmissible,” he said, adding it would amount to aggression.

Obama and his regime have avoided presenting this to the UN because the “reset” in US-Russian relations has turned out so well. And we all know that despite Putin’s statement it would take an imbecile to believe that he and China are going to help Obama out of this self-beclownment or join in the strike. But for an administration that excoriated its predecessor for being unilateralist they have at least a moral obligation to make their best case for Assad’s guilt to the world.

Putin’s offer is a valid one. Obama can still proceed with a strike if he wishes but the world, and most of all the American people, need to see the evidence before we are inserted into a civil war with no clear good guys.

Obama was in Sweden bashing how Americans treat him. Then furthers it by saying those Europeans give him a better reception. Unless he is auditioning for commander of the European Socialist Union, he needs to stop bashing the United States!

President Obama said Friday he will address the American people on Tuesday about Syria, a key move in his effort to persuade Congress to back a military strike.

“I will make the best case that I can,” he told reporters at the end of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he sought global support for force against Syria.

Obama declined to say whether he would order an attack against Bashar Assad’s government even if Congress rejects authorization, saying he did not want to “jump the gun and speculate.”

The president said he and his team will “systematically” speak to every member of Congress about plans to target Assad’s chemical weapons capability and emphasize that it would be a “limited” operation without American ground troops.

……………..

Will he just fuck off already, however if he is doing this, its because he is in desperation and does not have the votes. No ones listening though.

Paul W Oatman shared Frank Bates’s photo.
IF YOU BOMB ANOTHER COUNTRY,ITS AN ACT OF WAR,WHAT HAPPENS IF SYRIA LAUNCHES PLANES AGAINST OUR SHIPS AFTERWARDS,AND SAY 2 OR 3 GET THROUGH AND BOMB THEM,AMERICAN LIVES WILL BE LOST,THEN ITS REAL WAR,STUPID. WAR IS WAR,OBAMA IS A FOOL LEADING FOOLS,THATS HOW HE GOT ELECTED. 🙁

Putin is right. If the threat posed by Syria was to the United States, then we would have the right under Article 51 of the UN charter to defend ourselves unilaterally without UN approval. But this military operation would not be a war of self defense, but rather a war of aggression. And, due to the machinations of people like Obama, we surrendered our sovereignty to the UN, when it comes to launching a war against a nation that presents no danger to the United States without the approval of the UN Security Council. We have gotten around that prohibition in times past by forming a 21 nation coalition as Bush did in Iraq, whereas now we have no coalition, no national interest and no rational endgame beyond a show of force, which has now morphed into toppling is regime, and establishing something even worse, like the Muslim Brotherhood which we supported to Egypt only to have it rejected by the people and we now learn that Obama’s brother is part of that organization. The reality however is that we will get something even worse than the Muslim Brotherhood, namely al Qaeda, because they are more violent. And the remnants of the Assad regime will spread throughout the world where they can do harm to Americans, whereas now they are constrained.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

According to media reports, the attack was carried out because the passengers who were from three different villages in Ras al-Ain, supported anti-terrorist Kurdish groups which were formed recently to defend Kurdish population against anti-Syria terrorists.

Bodies of the mother and her 40-day old infant were also seen among the dead, which were recognized by their relatives.
Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim warned on Friday that the Kurd minority is facing an ethnic cleansing by al-Qaeda terrorists.

While there is no end in sight to the bloody foreign-fueled conflict in Syria, another front has been formed between the Kurdish militia and extremist militants in Northern Syria.

I would hope by now that the country knows that Obama is a liar and a liar, beating the drums of war, is not to be believed. He will make his speech to the nation, riddled with half truths, graphic pictures and manufactured evidence Tuesday next. And when he does so, I fear that the mob mentality aided and abetted by the machinations of big media who strongly support this war will overcome both logic and reason, and his corrupt media pollsters will register support for the worst mistake this nation has ever made, other than electing Obama. I hope I am wrong, but experience suggests otherwise. It is all too Pavlovian for my tastes.

ruth of the matter is nowhere near establishe
d yet. The present paper has shown
that the reporting leaves far too many questions un
answered, and the possible dependence of
at least some of the reporting on misunderstanding
or on planted evidence cannot be
excluded. Still, overlaying the civil-society and
other nongovernmental reporting of chemical
warfare, there is now the body of accusation (set o
ut in records U1 through U10 above) that
certain Western governments have made against the S
yrian regime, notwithstanding sustained
repudiation by Russia, Iran and China. Of course
in some quarters the mere fact of such
accusations having been made is enough to promote b
elief in the allegations underpinning
them. Would the British or the US government, for
example, ever embark upon such a hostile
act without the full backing of incontrovertible ev
idence? True, the wider ramifications of the
Syrian civil war, plus the necessity of protecting
intelligence methods and sources, may have
inhibited candour by the accusing governments, and
this could be why there is such a striking
35
dearth of detail in their allegations. Even so, t
he pressing task of demonstrating whether there
is or is not truth in the allegations necessitates
more evidence than bald assertion. It is not at al
l
obvious why, at the very least, the British, French
, Turkish and US governments have not
publicly described for scientific audiences the ana
lytical methods they applied to the
physiological (and perhaps other) samples in which
they all say they have found sarin.
Possibly political authorities in the accusing coun
tries have been unable accurately to judge the
reliability of chemical analytical reports.

As I have said, many times: I do not know what the right answer is when it comes to intervening in Syria. Every option is bad, with negative consequences and poor results. If I was a Member of Congress I would be frantically trying to go through what information I have available, in order to determine the least-worst scenario and vote for that. Because of all of that, I cannot in good conscience call for Members of Congress (Republican AND Democrat) to do anything except vote their consciences: if I don’t have the right answer myself, I shouldn’t try to second-guess a legislator’s own sense of morality.

But I will so totally give tactical advice on when to vote. Glenn Reynolds’ advice here is spot-on:

If I were the GOP — in both the House and Senate — I wouldn’t let a single Republican vote be cast until all the Democrats have voted.

Do this, please. Make the Democrats sweat this vote. They’re the ones who decided to run for the last decade on a ‘peace’ platform – and then elect a guy whose natsec strategy is to do everything that the Left thought that George W Bush did, only incompetently. They’re also the ones who have to choose between heeding the desires of the leader of their party, and the desires of the American people; my sympathy for the average Democratic legislator caught in this cleft stick is somewhere below nil right now. So I think that now is a marvelous time to encourage a little long-term thinking in the American Left, using a time-honored educational principle:

Please join us as Congressman Frank Wolf (VA – 10) and Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Christopher Farrell discuss the American public’s unanswered questions regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 despite a year of investigations by five separate House committees. Rep. Frank Wolf will also detail his efforts calling for a bipartisan House Select Committee to fully investigate the terrorist attack.
Moderator: Tom Fitton President of Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch Headquarters Monday, September 9, 2013 Panel from 4 PM – 5 PM ET
Main Conference Room
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 (One block south from Federal Center SW Metro station on the Orange/Blue lines)
Washington, DC 20024
Join us in Washington, D.C. or watch live online beginning at 4 PM ET at http://www.judicialwatch.org/live.
This event is free of charge and open to the public. Please register by emailing us at JWEvents@judicialwatch.org or by calling (202) 646-5172.

what a poser O is…making the long walk before cameras all by himself…O, alone, to save the world…he looks foolish…and his behavior is becoming scary/delusional…

he has no answers for what happens after he ‘teaches’ Bashar a lesson…
what if he does get drawn into another Afghanastan/Iraq in Syria?…

remember when we were promised the Iraq war would be over in six months at a minimum cost…
how long did that go on and at what cost to us Americans?

remember when the O admin promised that the Libya invasion would be days, not months…
then we had Bengazi…and does anyone have any idea what is really going on there now?
and at what cost to us Americans?

then we aided Egypt…who knows what is going on there now…look at how those “rebels” turned out
and at what cost to us Americans?

now, O wants to essentially ‘go-it-alone- into Syria…he has no idea what the outcome will be…he cannot say for sure who the rebels are…will the rebels turn out to be like the rebels in Egypt???
will they take over and want to obliterate all Christians? and impose Sharia law, etc…will they turn out to be ego driven killers?

and at what cost to all of us Americans?

…millions and billions of dollars funneling out of country for all these wars and escapades…no one really knowing where it all goes and to whose hands it falls into…

…and we, the Americans, are forced every few months to increase our debt limit so the USA can pay its bills…we do not learn, we do not live within our means…we just continue to overspend and leave Americans at risk…and just keep borrowing more and more…and getting involved in all these escapades…while our country and cities are going BANKRUPT…

I am, as many here know, a Zionist strong supporter of Israel, but would prefer Jewish groups not to comment on the Syria situation as it gives the lunatics ammunition for anti-Semitic rants. Personally, I support a military response, but understand it is not as easy as lobby some cruise missile at a limited target. Obama will blame Jewish lobby groups and Israel if this goes wrong.On the other hand, Hillary support action this she is the darling of most American Jewish lobbying groups.

“Personally, I support a military response..”
*****
I don’t understand the logic. How much of a threat has the Assad father/son control of Syria been to Israel since the 1967 war? Looking at the situation for afar, having Sunni Salafists with the material resources of the Syrian army over looking Israel from the Golan Heights seems much more threatening than the past and current situation. IMO, Israel was safer with Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria being run by Islamist hating despots then the current situation. The Iranian Shia leadership is likely more “responsible” then the Sunni wackos. Time will tell and I’m not optimistic.

Better late than never, I suppose: Paul Krugman now says that the five years of the Obama administration have been “years of tragic waste,” and that the nation’s economic policies during that time have been “an astonishing, horrifying failure.” One wonders: what took Krugman so long to figure that out?

Of course, Krugman thinks the problem with Obama’s policies is that the stimulus was too small, the United States isn’t far enough in debt, and we don’t have a big enough public sector. More cowbell! The salient point, I think, is that we can say it is now unanimous: Left and Right agree that Obamanomics has been an utter failure. The only question at this point is whether to go even farther left–to, what, the policies of Fidel Castro or Kim Jong-un?–or return to the principles of limited government and a free market that produced our prosperity in the first place. Seems like an easy choice.

Maybe Krugman’s pessimism was the result of getting a look at today’s jobs numbers. Not only was August’s job creation number an anemic 169,000, but the numbers for June and July were revised sharply downward, with July’s total a pathetic 104,000. And these new jobs are just about all part-time in any event. Grim news, indeed.

JBStonesFan, the threat to Israel is Iran, not Syria. Syria is a distraction. Syria is the puppet. Iran is the puppet master. The puppet master is quite happy when the focus is on the puppet as the puppet master hurries to get nukes.

The lesson from Syria for Israel and American Jewish groups is that Obama cannot be trusted and that is especially so when it comes to Iran getting nuclear weapons.

BTW, we were remiss this year in wishing you and our readers L’Shanah Tovah. Hope you and your family are doing well.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran’s fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. [SNIP]

Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the “destruction of Israel.”

The State Department issued a new alert on Thursday warning against nonessential travel to Iraq and citing terrorist activity “at levels unseen since 2008.” Earlier this year, an alert said that violence against Americans had decreased. That reassurance was dropped from the most recent alert.

The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

In it, Mr. Soleimani said Shiite groups must be prepared to respond with force after a U.S. strike on Syria.

Iran is the problem. Syria is a distraction. Israel beware and don’t fall into the trap of attacking the puppet while the puppet master plots.

Fox News has a blockbuster report which sheds further light on why the Obama administration has been involved in a massive cover up surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack – and it raises serious questions about Obama’s policies in Syria as well.

New reports indicate that rebels allied with al-Qaida were being trained in Benghazi and then sent up to fight in the Syrian civil war against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. These include terrorist networks involved in the September 11th terrorist attack on our U.S. compound in Benghazi.

“Because they have now shown they will use chemical weapons on their own people, and therefore, will not hesitate to use them on Israel unless they are stopped now.”
******
So a policy of stand off bombardment to degrade the Syrian army and supply the Islamists makes that possibility less?? Handing the Syrian stockpile of Chem. weapons to Al Nursa would be a disaster for Israel, IMO.

Many Miles Away From Syria
The Worse Things Than Syria That We Need To Take Action On

By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) | September 6th, 2013 at 12:16 PM

We can lay the viper-struck waste that is Syria aside for the nonce. Unless the House of Representatives holds an epic fold, we aren’t going to Syria with Congressional authorization. If we currently have 187 Neas, 33 Yeas and 215 Undecideds, a 435 vote session should end up about 290 Nea to 145 Yea. Also, we have much, much bigger things to worry about.

WaPo whip count: 224 likely no votes in House on Syria now, enough to kill resolution

Just 25 likely yeses, with fully 184 reps still quietly undecided. Even if that group splits with roughly two-thirds in favor of attacking, the House will be in the ballpark of defeating this thing with nearly 300 votes.

Right now, more than 60 Democrats are either firm no’s or leaning that way. Did O wait too long to deliver the national lecture on Syria? [snip]

It’s one thing to plan a big nationally televised pep talk to rally your allies in Congress when you’re sitting at 60 percent job approval. When you’re sitting at 44, and your party’s already facing a heavy lift in the midterms, there’s no such thing as “allies.” Not even Pelosi, who was willing to gamble the House majority on ObamaCare, is willing to twist arms on this one. Yet.

Via Mediaite, here’s Dana Bash of CNN telling Tapper that the White House’s classified briefings for House members aimed at persuading them to vote yes are … having the opposite effect. So that’s why the no’s in the whip count keep rising.

GREENVILLE, S.C. — South Carolina’s senior senator continued to argue for U.S. military intervention in Syria in a speech to 300 Chamber of Commerce members here while acknowledging his position is unpopular with voters.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also said Congress is not likely to authorize a strike, predicting a close vote in the Senate where the resolution is likely to come up next week and a larger margin in the House where the timing is less certain.

From BAR:
****
“A new Reuters poll shows 56 percent of the American public oppose U.S. intervention in Syria, with only 19 percent backing Obama. The First Black U.S. President, who was hired (by corporate sponsors, and later elected) to put a new face on U.S. imperial policy after his predecessor’s defeat and international isolation over Iraq, now finds himself more alone in the world than George Bush, and with even less support at home.”
****
Obama may well get permission from the U.S. Congress to smash the Syrian state. The president reserves the right to launch the attack, unilaterally, and will not be punished if he does so. It is quite possible that Assad will soon be dead, and Al-Nusra jihadists will be cutting off heads in what’s left of central Damascus. But one thing is certain: the U.S. has no long term allies among the Arab people – certainly not the jihadists, who will also turn on their royal paymasters at the first opportunity. The game board cannot be reset – not for long – and, at some point in the not too distant future, the U.S. will be ejected from much of the Arab world.

This is what I plan to send out Monday. If anyone want to suggest any edits, please do so.
——————————————
Dear Senator

For years, America and Britain have been conducting a covert war against the Assad regime in Syria, which is supported by Iran and Russia. To that end, we and our allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey have supplied weapons and training to a violent rebel group affiliated with al Qaeda, who are fighting and losing a civil war against the Assad regime.

Two weeks ago, President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron were on the verge of launching air strikes against the Syrian government, in order to aid the rebels, and weaken the Assad government. The pretext for this action was the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

Mr. Obama claimed that he had the right to launch such an attack, without the prior consent of Congress, and notwithstanding the opposition of the American People. After failing to secure UN support, he declared the right to proceed unilaterally. Judge Neopolitano and Hans Blix disagree. They assert this would be a war crime.

Mr.Obama changed his tune after Cameron asked Parliament for war authorization, and his request was voted down. He then agreed to seek war authorization from Congress. However, he reserved the right to proceed with the attack if Congress refused to provide it.

Consequently, the question of war authorization has been tossed in the laps of you and your fellow Members of Congress. And that means you will have to choose between will of the President, the will of the American People, and the best interests of this nation.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government. On certain issues, it may choose to defer to the president for reasons of politics or expediency. But when the issue is war, or the prelude to war, it is imperative for Congress to exercise an independent judgment on what is best for the nation.

To that end, it is compelled to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed course of action, the risks it would entail and the likelihood of success. In this particular case, the following observations are germane:

1. ELECTIVE WAR: The war which is being proposed here is an elective war. We were not attacked by these parties. No strategic interests are directly affected. Therefore, we are not compelled to act.

3. IRAQ REDUX: This war bears an eerie resemblance to Iraq and Libya. In both cases we have a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

5. FAUSTIAN PACT: The rebels who are the intended beneficiary of this war have al Qaeda elements in their ranks, execute people without a trial, have admitted using chemical weapons themselves, and the UN officials have so found. Russia has presented incontrovertible proof of this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V5kda1KhqlU

6. MISSION CREEP: Obama said that this military strike would be a shot across the bow and he was not seeking regime change. Then an unnamed staffer said it would be muscular enough not to be ridiculed by not so muscular as to provoke a response from Iran. Then Kerry said not asking to go to war, just to degrade capacity. Then Durbin said this won’t be a limited but a powerful response. In other words the attack gets more deadly with each successive iteration. No wonder the battle plan has been revised over 50 times.

7. PALPABLE RISKS: Iran has threatened to attack Israel if we attack Syria. This would touch off a major regional war. It smacks of the Guns of August. If we succeed in toppling Assad then al Qaeda or Muslim extremists will rule Syria, and they will have access to chemical weapons which they have used before. Escalation is likely and there is no way to backstop it.

8. DIPLOMACY: “There is a very good historical precedent for a thesis which belongs to the cream of the diplomatic tradition in better times. It is the thesis that if two rivals are offering an alternative threat to the existing order, and if you are unwilling to let the rascals fight it out themselves, then choose carefully the time of your intervention in their struggle and see that you intervene only in time to save the weaker of the two. For as long as there are two combatants the world can breathe; but if you destroy one of them in the name of self righteousness then you are using your blood and treasure to build up the other into a greater monster than ever, and you will infallibly have to face it at the next stage of the story. In other words, the policy of ridding the world of aggression by a war of righteousness is like using the devil to cast out the devil, and it never works.”

As a practical matter, Mr. Obama has deployed the troops and announced his intentions, which seem to escalate with each passing day. He is likely to launch air strikes if Congress denies authorization. But if authorization is granted, it is likely that he will launch an even wider war, and that could be everyone’s undoing. Simply put, a denial of authorization may be the only way for Congress to retain some control over the outcome.

Lastly, on an issue of this importance every Member of Congress owes it to his or her constituents to declare where he or she stands. If they vote for this war, and it goes sideways, their constituents can and should hold them accountable. There is grave risk here and no one is immune.

Mayor ‘dhimmi’ Bloomberg has turned New York into a sharia-compliant city

New Yorker is rightfully outraged when his car is blocked in by double-parked Muslim taxis, whose drivers are praying at the mosque around the corner. Police refuse to ticket the taxis because Bloomberg has ordered them to stand down when Muslims inconvenience everyone else for their faith.
Try to use that excuse when double parking near a church and see how fast you get a ticket. Sometimes they’ll drop to their knees and lift their asses to Allah right in the middle of the street in NYC.

The FactChecker. WaPo. Published 9/6/13/President Obama and the ‘red line’on Syria’s chemical weapons .
I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
— President Obama, news conference in Stockholm, Sept. 4, 2013

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
— Obama, remarks to reporters, August 20, 2012

This is a puzzler. How can the president say he did not create a “red line” when his statement last year about a “red line” is one of the most famous statements of his presidency? We’ve certainly received many tweets and e-mails from readers eager to see The Fact Checker slap a bunch of Pinocchios on him.
It’s not quite so simple. The “red line” has been rhetorically troublesome for the president ever since he uttered those words about a year ago — apparently to the surprise of his aides. Let’s see what the fuss is about.
SNIP So the red line, for better or worse, was in place. SNIP When the administration unexpectedly decided to seek congressional approval for a military strike, officials clearly faced a conundrum. The president needs the votes of Republicans in order to win approval, but given the partisan distrust of his leadership, the White House apparently decided it would not be helpful to ask for support for an Obama “red line.” So the rhetoric shifted — it was now the world’s red line. SNIP If he had used Kerry’s language, it would not have been as much of an issue: “The line I drew is the same one that the world has had for nearly 100 years.” Or something like that. Of course, he didn’t say that. So is a bungled talking point worthy of Pinocchios? We don’t try to play gotcha here at The Fact Checker, so we are inclined to leave this question to our readers. Some may find the president’s apparent discomfort with his own words more meaningful than any potential misstatement.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/2013/09/06/8646f9ee-16db-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

9/7/13. Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan Dishonorably Discharged, No Longer Major
REMOVED FROM ARMY, FORT HOOD SHOOTER TO BE PAID UNTIL SEPT. 10 By Greg Janda SNIP Earlier this year, NBC 5 INVESTIGATES was the first to report that the Department of Defense showed Hasan had been paid about $300,000 after his arrest for the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting.
After the NBC 5 investigation aired, three U.S. representatives have drafted legislation that would stop military payments to soldiers awaiting trial for major crimes. The money would be returned to the solider if they are acquitted but if they are found guilty the money would go to the victims.
The $300,000 in payments already made to Hasan are unlikely to be returned to the military. However, Army officials could consider launching a “line of duty” investigation to determine if Hasan is liable for the payments incurred for treatment of the injuries he sustained when police responding to the attack shot him. Victims of the attack are also pursuing a civil lawsuit against Hasan. SNIPhttp://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hasan-Dishonorably-Discharged.html
h/t GatewayPundit. Jim is recovering from serious blood infection introduced by knee surgery. If I recall he’s since had to have a heart valve replaced. Shades of Breitbart? At any rate, healing wishes and thanks to Jim and friends.

Plausible?
Alliance of Tea Party libertarians and anti-war Dems looks like the real thing
By Greg Sargent, Published: September 6 at 2:46 pm
How real are the prospects for a genuine alliance against action in Syria between progressive anti-war Democrats and isolationist Tea Party libertarians?
snip
In both cases — on Syria, and on the amendment to end NSA surveillance — this loose alliance of lawmakers is allied against the leadership of their own parties. And in both cases, they represent a genuine threat to the outcome. In the case of the Amash amendment, it fell just short of victory. On Syria, it’s early days yet, and as I’ve said here before, you should treat the whip counts with some skepticism. But it’s very possible that the Syria resolution could go down, and if it does, this alliance is very likely to have played a major role.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/06/alliance-of-tea-party-libertarians-and-anti-war-dems-looks-like-the-real-thing/

Foreign Ministers Say There Is ‘Strong Evidence’ Regime Was Behind Use of Chemical Weapons

VILNIUS­European Union foreign ministers said on Saturday that there appeared to be “strong evidence” that Syria’s government was behind the alleged use of chemical weapons against rebels and urged a “clear and strong” response.

The statement, which came at the end of a two-day meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, followed discussions with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who met with the ministers Saturday morning.

Mr. Kerry said at a news conference that he was “very grateful” for the group’s statement on the “need for accountability” in Syria.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

foxyladi14
September 7, 2013 at 12:12 pm
———————
It has been aired several times I know of: he’s giving up “west coast trip” for his Syrian persuasion campaign. So he wants a war a lot. Maybe Hollywood’s pockets not so full for him right now anyway.

Maybe Attorney General Holder is right. Maybe America is a racist country filled with cowards who won’t be honest about the problem:

NYPD: Man Brain-Dead Following Random Rampage In Union Square

[Jeffrey] Babbitt [62 yrs old] was minding his own business as he walked through the crowd near the chess boards in Union Square when a man made a hateful announcement and began his rampage, witnesses said.

“He said ‘the next white person who walks by I’m going to [expletive],’” one woman said. “His fist went in and the man’s head bobbed and he hit the ground and you could hear his skull hitting the ground.”

No comment from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, or any of the other prominent dishonest cowards AG Holder referenced above. They don’t care about race relations. They only care about race exploitation.

The Marine Corps has suddenly dropped criminal charges against an officer in the infamous Taliban urination video case, heading off what promised to be an embarrassing pre-trial hearing for the commandant on Wednesday.
Defense attorneys for Capt. James V. Clement had won a judge’s order, over objections from Marine prosecutors, for two staff attorneys to testify in open court about how senior commanders had interfered in the case to get a guilty verdict. The lawyers also were seeking to question Gen. James Amos, the commandant, and wanted access to his private emails. But the criminal case ended Friday when Lt. Gen. Kenneth J. Glueck, who heads Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., and was overseeing the prosecution, filed a brief court paper withdrawing the charges. John Dowd, Capt. Clement’s principal defense counsel, had accused the commandant of engineering the largest case of unlawful command influence in the Corps’ history. SNIPhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/7/marine-corps-retreats-court-martial-charges-taliba/

Well, I thought about the letter overnight and made some material changes to it. This is what I plan to send. Some of you have mentioned sending letters to your senators and congressmen in opposition to the military strike. If you do so and if you find merit in these arguments, then feel free to use this letter or parts thereof as you see fit.
—————————————————-
Dear Senator

For years, America and Britain have been pursuing a covert war against the Assad regime in Syria, which is supported by Iran and Russia. To that end, we and our allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been supplying weapons and training to a violent rebel group affiliated with al Qaeda, who are fighting– and losing a civil war against the Assad regime.
Two weeks ago, President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron were on the verge of launching air strikes against the Syrian government, to aid the rebels, and weaken the Assad government. The pretext for this action, i.e. causus belli was the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

Mr. Obama claimed that he had the legal right as President to launch such an attack, without the prior consent of Congress, and notwithstanding the opposition of the American People. After failing to secure UN support, he dismissed them as hocus pocus and prepared to act unilaterally.

However, Mr. Obama changed his tune after Cameron asked Parliament for war authorization, and his request was voted down. He then agreed to seek war authorization from Congress. But, he reserved the right to proceed with the attack if Congress refused to provide it.

Consequently, the question of war authorization has been tossed in the laps of you and your fellow Members of Congress. And that means you will have to choose between will of the President, the will of the American People as expressed in polling data, and the letters sent to you by constituents like me. Ultimately, you must determine the best interests of this nation.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government. On certain issues, it may choose to defer to the president for the sake of party discipline. But when the issue is war, or the prelude to war, it is imperative for Congress to exercise an independent judgment on what is best for the nation.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon duly elected representatives in Congress to closely consider of the merits of the proposed course of action, in terms of its legality, the risks it would entail and the likelihood of success. To that end, the following observations are pertinent:

1. ELECTIVE WAR: The war which the President is proposing is an elective war, as opposed to a war of self defense. The United States has not been attacked by the Assad regime. No strategic interests of this nation are directly affected. And, it will not restore whatever credibility we have lost in the region in recent years. In sum, we are not compelled to attack Assad.

2. OPPORTUNITY COST: A war of this nature would consume massive amounts money which we would have to borrow from China. The preliminary estimates by the Pentagon cannot be relied upon. But even worse, it would prevent us from addressing the staggering economic problems which exist on the home front, in places like Detroit. Those problems grow worse by the day. http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/06/many-miles-away-from-syria/

3. THE SPECTRE OF IRAQ: This is not a case of first impression. On the contrary, it bears an eerie resemblance to Iraq. There as here, the war was elective, the pretext was weapons of mass destruction, and the evidence was suspect. The end result was a loss of American lives, the emergence of a government hostile to our interests, a society riven with sectarian violence and the geopolitical empowerment of Iran. We must learn from past mistakes, lest we repeat them.

4. TAINTED EVIDENCE: The Administration has presented evidence to indicate that Assad used chemical weapons. However, that evidence is suspect. The following articles are by Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and featured expert on CNN explain why:

Finally, we now learn that the woman who briefed McCain and Kerry on the alleged Assad atrocities was in the employ of the Syrian rebels, which makes her testimony suspect.

5. FAUSTIAN PACT: If the real purpose of this war is to aid and abet the Syrian rebels, then it is important to know who these people are. The Administration’s answer to that question has been nuanced and evasive. However, there is independent evidence that the rebels include elements of al Qaeda and other Muslim extremist factions. There is evidence that that they have killed Christians, and have been shown on tape executing government soldiers and burying them in mass graves. There is evidence from the United Nations inspectors, Russia and rebel defectors, that the rebels have used chemical weapons themselves in an effort to draw the United States into their civil war. Our strategy of using the devil to cast out the devil will backfire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V5kda1KhqlU

6. MISSION CREEP: Initially, Mr. Obama characterized this military strike as nothing more than a shot across the bow. He claimed that he was not seeking regime change. Then a staffer came forward and assured us that the military strike would be muscular enough not to be ridiculed by not so muscular as to provoke a response from Iran. Then Secretary of State Kerry asserted that he was not asking to go to war, but merely to degrade the capacity of the Assad government to launch further chemical attacks. Finally, Senator Durbin warned us this won’t be a limited but a powerful response. It remains to be seen what Mr. Obama will say about this in his address to the nation Tuesday night. The fact that he chose war hawks McCain and Graham to go meet with the rebel forces suggests to me that the objective has morphed into regime change. Thus, it is hardly surprising that battle plan has been revised over 50 times.

7. MEGAPOLITICAL RISKS: Former Secretary Rumsfeld’s observation about the Iraq War proved to be true, i.e. we do not know what we do not know. That is also true here. Iran has threatened to attack Israel if we attack Syria. This would touch off a major regional war, which could set this nation on a collision course with Russia. The relationship between Obama and Putin is highly contentious. If we topple Assad then al Qaeda or Muslim extremists will rule Syria, and they will have access to chemical weapons which they have used before. Escalation is likely and there is no way to backstop it. In advocating action, Republican hawk John Negroponte has characterized this as a choice between bad and worse. If that is true, then it is madness to move forward.

8. DIPLOMACY: “There is a very good historical precedent for a thesis which belongs to the cream of the diplomatic tradition in better times. It is the thesis that if two rivals are offering an alternative threat to the existing order, and if you are unwilling to let the rascals fight it out themselves, then choose carefully the time of your intervention in their struggle and see that you intervene only in time to save the weaker of the two. For as long as there are two combatants the world can breathe; but if you destroy one of them in the name of self righteousness then you are using your blood and treasure to build up the other into a greater monster than ever, and you will infallibly have to face it at the next stage of the story. In other words, the policy of ridding the world of aggression by a war of righteousness is like using the devil to cast out the devil.”

9. ILLEGALITY: Mr. Obama claimed that he had the right to launch such an attack, without the prior consent of Congress, and notwithstanding the opposition of the American People. Not surprisingly, the architect of the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfelt agrees with him.

However, Constitutional experts like Judge Neopolitano disagree. They point out that military action would be illegal under international law because it meets none of the four accepted standards for military intervention. Moreover, it would be illegal under domestic law because the War Powers Act upon which Obama (and his Republican supporters) rely upon is unconstitutional , since the Constitution vests in Congress, and not the President, the power to declare war. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/05/judge-napolitano-attack-syria-would-be-war-crime#ixzz2eDofRFl6

Mr. Obama’s position is also refuted by UN weapons inspector Hans Blix who denies that the use of chemical weapons, if proven, would automate the use of force. Therefore, contrary to the President’s most recent justification, the world community did not create the red line. In sum, Congress should be reluctant to authorize a war of aggression that lacks international sanction, may constitute a war crime and raises serious questions of constitutional law.
10. MAGNITUDE: As a practical matter, Mr. Obama has deployed the military assets and announced his intentions to conduct a military strike, the scope of which seems to escalate with each passing day, and whose risks increase accordingly.

He has reserved the right to act if Congress turns him down. Nevertheless, your vote to grant or deny him that authority is critical for three (3) reasons:

First, given the mission creep we have seen, it is unrealistic to expect that the limitations imposed by congress will be adhered to. Once we get into this thing, the mandate will expand.

Second, if he is given authorization then he will be encouraged to proceed more boldly, and recklessly than he would otherwise. Therefore, denying him the authorization, and sending a clear signal to that effect may be the only way Congress can assert some control over the issue, from a constitutional standpoint.

And third, consistent with the legal doctrine of agency, and the assumption that the people are sovereign, every Member of Congress owes it to his or her constituents to declare where he or she stands. If they vote for this war, and it turns out badly, then it is only right that their constituents hold them accountable. Simply put, there is grave risk here and no one is immune.

ST. PETERSBURG (The Borowitz Report)—Hopes for a positive G20 summit crumbled today as President Obama blurted to Russia’s Vladimir Putin at a joint press appearance, “Everyone here thinks you’re a jackass.”

The press corps appeared stunned by the uncharacteristic outburst from Mr. Obama, who then unleashed a ten-minute tirade at the stone-faced Russian President.

“Look, I’m not just talking about Snowden and Syria,” Mr. Obama said. “What about Pussy Riot? What about your anti-gay laws? Total jackass moves, my friend.”.

20,000 North Koreans held in huge prison camp have simply ‘disappeared’, claim human rights group

Thousands of prisoners are missing after the closure of brutal Camp 22
New report claims many either died of starvation or disease last year
Few who are sent to North Korea’s labour camps ever live to tell the tale
A human rights group has now called for an urgent inquiry into the matter

Well, I thought about the letter overnight and made some material changes to it. This is what I plan to send. Some of you have mentioned sending letters to your senators and congressmen in opposition to the military strike. If you do so and if you find merit in these arguments, then feel free to use this letter or parts thereof as you see fit.

You know you’ve screwed things up badly when Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and Michael Moore actually have a point. Oh, I’m well aware they’ve always been anti-war, that’s the entire point. (I have more respect for them than Hollywood actors too paralyzed with fear over having the Race Card pulled on them for a change, anyway) I don’t think sincerity excuses being a nutcase or a fool, but it’s surprising to see that some leftists actually mean what they say.